Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

Proposed good articles

This star represents the proposed good content on Wikipedia.

"Good articles" are articles that are better than other articles, according to many people. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles. Please only put one article in at a time.

Articles that are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles that are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are better than the good article criteria can be proposed to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

Joining the talk

If you choose to join in the talk about good articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly.

If people think that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may not be allowed to join in any more.

Proposals for good articles

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code, filling out 'page title' and 'reason' with your proposed page's title and why you think this page should be a proposed article: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~

You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

Mia Love

Mia Love (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Y The article is about a subject suitable for Wikipedia.
Y The article is fairly complete, with a prose size of 9268 B (1433 words).
Y The article has gone through a few revisions, but not by different editors.
Y The article is filed in the appropriate category.
Y It has at least one interwiki link.
Y The article is stable with no recent big changes or ongoing change wars.
Y There are no templates indicating that the article needs improvement.
Y Content from books, journal articles, and other publications is properly referenced.

The article has been expanded, is properly sourced, simplified as much as I could find [feedback always welcome :)], proper cats, no redlinks and thoroughly covers the subject. Please let me know if there's any way I can improve the article! There's often some tricky words that cannot/might require more attention to simplify when it comes to politicians, but I think I tackled most of it down. Thank you for your consideration! :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I enjoyed reading the whole article and can see nothing glaring that needs to be changed. It would have been good to have more people editing it but often that's not the case for GAs. Good luck

fr33k man 17:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals closed recently

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I've transferred the subject's English Wikipedia article (which is currently nominated for GA status and which I am a major contributor to) here after making significant cuts and changes to the language. This is my first time writing an article for simple english Wikipedia, but I put a lot of work into it, so I hope it's worthy of GA status. The article has many sources, and it's just over half as long as the original version. If there's anything you need me to fix, please tell me, and I will fix it as soon as possible! Reverosie (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are lots of complex words used in the page like determination, commitment, uncooperativeness. The sentence structures are complex starting from the intro. Lots of redlinks too. There is quite a lot of work that needs to be done here. This page fails #3, #6, and #8. I recommend you read some of our featured pages to see what is expected. It is a very interesting topic to write on though. I hope you have fun working on the page. Thanks, :)-- BRP^ever 17:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few words which are complex and either need explaining in line or linking to Wiktionary. Words such determination, disorder, vassals, uncooperativeness, and leprosy need to be explained or linked to other articles. That was just the first section. I'd suggest also that you read Simple Introduction and also run the page through the readability tools at the bottom of that page. We attempt to write articles that a lay person and children in US geades 7-9 can read. Many of our readers are also learning English as a foreign language so we need to keep grammar, sentence structure and length short. On a positive note however, the article seems to explain the subject thoughly enough. I'd like to see some editing from other people as we don't usually promote articles that are essentially written by one person. Good luck fr33k man 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for responding so quickly!!! I'll get to work on the article as soon as possible, and hopefully I can fix these issues! Reverosie (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever @Fr33kman I've fixed the problems you mentioned. I replaced the words that were too complicated, added more links (and removed the red links), and simplified the sentences. I'm very sad to say that I'm not sure what I'm going to do about #3 because this is a very niche topic, but besides that, I think I fixed it :). Reverosie (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reverosie We ususally create pages and turn the link into blue if there is no page on the topic if it's notable. Removal of red links is actually discouraged because it is believed that it helps wikipedia grow by encouraging people to create more pages. I will take another look when I get some time. Thanks, BRP^ever 00:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll add some red links back to the article where they're needed Reverosie (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More simplification is needed. For example, we use early life instead of childhood. The introduction could use some more wikilinking. You can see BE 1500 for a list of simple words. More complicated words can be wikilinked to our simplified Wiktionary. Good luck!

⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 14:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I’m going to get to work on the simplifications as soon as possible 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 18:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever @Fr33kman @Asteralee, I've finished simplifying the article. I hope that it is now acceptable! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better. There are still many red links, so I suggest you make some related pages and turn them blue. Other than that, I think it's already looking quite good. BRP^ever 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll get to work on making those articles as soon as I can 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reverosie The article cannot have any apostrophes in it, so for example, The other nobles in the kingdom didn't like Amalric's wife, Agnes would most likely be The other nobles in the kingdom did not like Agnes, the wife of Almaric. Other than the apostrophes, your article is well on its way to be promoted; good work! ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'll remove those as soon as possible 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 14:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The banned apostrophes have all been removed 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left you a more detailed review on the article's talk page. -Barras talk 15:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! I'll get to looking at that right away! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteralee @BRPever @Barras @Fr33kman Hello! I'm sorry to bother all of you again, but I noticed that this proposal was nearly closed for being unlikely to pass. I'm still quite new to Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure what more I can do to improve the article aside from making more articles to remove red links. If somebody could point me in the right direction to improve this article, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have my Support for this as long as you create pages on the red links we have in the lead and maybe some others.-- BRP^ever 23:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! I'll make those articles as quickly as I can 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few sentences that don't make sense such as "In July 1178, Baldwin IV started connecting Sibylla with him in some public acts." What does connecting mean? Also, "Baldwin stayed against Raymond." What does that mean? The main problem I see is that some sections are just fact after fact and don't seem to flow well as a coherent narrative. It's almost ready but I think it needs to have some editing to make it flow together. fr33k man 23:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I think I got a bit carried away when simplifying it 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 23:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to not make it so simple that it seems to be talking down to the reader. Remember that many of the readers will be very smart but just aren't that good at reading Complex English. If you write so that a native English speaker between ages 12 - 14 can read it then it will be good for someone learning English to read also. You've done a good job so far. I'll reread your recent changes and comment more. fr33k man 00:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the entire article to fix this up a bit. Please tell me if I've made any progress! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your new changes I think it reads better and more smoothly so I can

Support the article for promotion to GA. :) fr33k man 01:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 03:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the article is in good article shape now. Promote. -Barras talk 17:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 18:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work! ⯎ Aster alee ⯎ 13:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Created articles for the remaining redlinks. Article is in good shape for promotion. Great work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asteralee @TDKR Chicago 101 Thank you so much!!!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 16:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted Clear consensus--Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Cactus🌵 ^hi ^ツ 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages